Seekers of the Red Mist (SRM) -- Varmint Hunting

Resources

Photo Album

This is always a work in progress
Hate Mail

Hot Tips

from the list Varmint Hunters Assoc's
Landowner Courtesy Sheet

Members pages

Shooting Books

Links

Need Help? havoc@harrisdev.com

Index of all threads

Seekers of the Red Mist (SRM) on Facebook

Seekers of the Red Mist
(Varmint Hunting Discussion)

RE2.5 beta

General Discussion

	1 Classified Ads Coffee Events (7/0/0) (1 folders) Gear (60/0/0) Handloading (537/0/0) (2 folders) Humor Hunting wheels (20/0/0) Long guns (435/0/0) (1 folders) Misc (84/0/0) (3 folders) MostDangerous (29/0/0)	Optics (110/0/0) (2 folders) Photo Album (36/0/0) Politics (233/4/0) Predators (177/0/0) Short guns (72/0/0) species-specific varmints (73/0/0) (2 folders) Technology (13/0/0) Wildcat Rounds (111/0/0) (1 folders) ~FAQ ~Suggestion Box (44/0/0)

204 -

RE: 204 -

IMR 8208 XBR -

RE: IMR 8208 XBR -

If you have a web site -

RE: If you have a web site -

DIY Camo Dip Kit - Gun Dipping at home -

Coyote kill -

RE: Coyote kill -

best caller? -

RE: best caller? -

Need weekend hunt advice -

RE: Need weekend hunt advice -

Wolves

[Print]
Idaho and Montana have opened up wolf hunting. I don't know if they are selling out of state tags or not but the wolves are wiping out the elk and deer populations in some areas. Controlling these wolf populations would benefit the deer/elk/sheep/cattle etc populations greatly in some areas. As an added bonus, you would get to PO the radical enviro weiners. I'm thinking a wolf hunt would be a nice change of pace (not that I'm going to let up on my other pursuits mind you).
Yotehammer, are you planning to be a Wolfhammer:-)

[Print]
I'm not too hot on the idea of wolf hunting yet. After all, we did nearly wipe them off the continent. When I start to see people getting chewed up by them, I'd maybe join in. As it is, it's difficult for me to empathized with ranchers that have thousands of acres of land of their own, some of which may have been given to them by the government at the time of it's inception. Not all of us have a huge homestead, ya know. You want all that land, you protect it yourself. If your family got is as a land grant, then you have to play by the rules and obey the federal laws on hunting the wolves.

[Print]
We had lots of wolves up north and once we had to rescue the Green Peacers who were up there protesting the wolf hunting; they were ill-equipped for minus forty temps. According to Intelligentsia there has never been a documented case of a wolf attacking a human being. I crossed paths with wolves about as often as Grizz...so far not one wolf or Grizz died at my hands. The young pups can be quite friendly and I see how we domesticated them ages ago.

I don't know about how our Canuck wolves are doing since they transplanted them to Yellowstone, but I imagine they prey on the old and sick Elk. It seems to me whenever man involves himself, the balance of nature is thrown out of whack.

Perhaps that is the answer to your Health Care problems, just let the old and sick die-off...hmmm a cure for the economic problems too!

[Print]
The issue certainly has many angles.
1. Do they or don't they attack humans? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans
Yes they do but not often.
2. Do they or don't they affect animal populations? http://animals.about.com/b/2009/07/19/wolves....ons.htm
Yes. Biggest issue, and in ways other than predation.
3. Do wolves affect livestock? http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Zoology-and-wi....ho.html
Yes, but not significant unless other food is not available. In other words, not until the other animal populations are reduced significantly.

I don't think people have any reason to worry about being eaten (unless you are young/small etc wolves avoid you). I also don't think ranchers have too much issue but this is highly variable. Some ranchers take a big hit others very little. The main issue is deer/elk/etc. These populations can take a Big hit. I read in one area the wolves have killed most of the young and old elk and mule deer. Once the current middle aged animals die the populations will drop dramatically since there are few young to replace them. This is the main reason I support the hunting: managment. With some level heads and good management both populations can be allowed to thrive. But then again I'm proposing common sense so the envirowieners won't go for it.

[Print]
WOLVES? What wolves I just shoot at very large and mean -- elk eating coyotes. I have never seen a wolf outside of the Yellowstone National Park area where they were introduced. I am sure the wolves wouldn't go outside the park and eat sheep or cattle or deer or elk they weren't supposed to. Wolves are really not at the top of the food chain and they are obedient and thoughtful. Now Coyotes on the other hand are rather foolish and would actually try and eat some animal not approved by the Washington D.C. committees. We really need to shoot more coyotes irregardless of size and save the young deer and elk for the wilderness area not to mention cattle and sheep penned up like "lunch to go" on various farms and ranches.

[Print]
While I don't follow wyk's line of thought I must agree with Accuracy Sports. I am wrong. I do not need to be hunting wolves. I need to be hunting the large Coyotes that are becoming increasingly more common in MT and ID. These Coyotes are larger than most and howl differently but these yotes are definitely affecting the deer/elk/cow/sheep herds. I'm going to forget about the wolf hunts and just focus on these Coyotes...

[Print]
If you wish to hunt Wolves, or 'large Coyotes' as you so cunningly refer to them, Alaska has allowed it for years. Montana only is allowing residents in the hunt so far, and Idaho seems to be leaning that way, as well. Bear in mind Alaska considers them big game, and not predators or varmint, and requires the correct permits and a rifle above 22 caliber.

[Print]
True. I've read several articles on both MT and ID hunts (the ID hunt had a guy get death threats and all sorts of harassment because he was the first to bag one). I think the wolves will be managed adequately such that they will not go extinct etc as before. However, I don't want to lean so far in the direction of letting the populations get out of hand in terms of the balance of the other wildlife. If the envirowieners were more balanced and did some population management with whatever means they wanted (relocation, etc) then I'd be more at ease with it. But instead of being reasonable they like to let things swing way too far in their direction with everything and everyone else be dammed. But this is the case for many groups on both sides of the fence I suppose.

[Print]
"If the envirowieners were more balanced and did some population management with whatever means they wanted (relocation, etc) then I'd be more at ease with it. But instead of being reasonable they like to let things swing way too far in their direction with everything and everyone else be dammed. But this is the case for many groups on both sides of the fence I suppose."

Exactly. It works both ways. If hunters had their way, there would be nothing left to hunt, and the environment would be a shambles - all one need do is pick up a history book. There has to be a balance, or everything goes to hell. And instead of making up silly posts that includes stupid phrases like "Large Coyotes", which do nothing but show our ignorance, we need to practice the correct amount of conservation of our natural resources, and show some understanding of the state of it. Otherwise what reason do our politicians have to back us. Ignorance is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Print]
I think the main point is whether it be wolves or any other population there has to be balanced managment that takes into account all the various factors and finds a way to achieve the best outcomes. The problems occur when people do not want to strike a balance and just want to have it all their way. The wolf debate is just one in a long list of examples. There are groups that don't want to allow any hunting at all instead of a balanced plan to allow a specific number of tags in specific areas etc. This type of thing is what gets my blood pressure up. I don't advocate wiping out wolves or anything else at all. Now maybe its the hunters I hang out with but I've never once talked to a hunter who wanted something resembling "there would be nothing left to hunt, and the environment would be a shambles". Its true that in the past greedy hunters and uninformed people hunted animals to the point of near or total extinction. However, today its hard to find hunters that are out to make animals extinct or object to population management rules. Sure in every statistical population you will find some group of nutbags but the vast majority are not that way and do in fact "practice the correct amount of conservation of our natural resources, and show some understanding of the state of it". Sure we use phrases like large coyotes but its pretty clear we are poking fun. I'd say the majority of the people on this forum are less ignorant than you might think but we just don't have our ropes wound so tight.

[Print]
It has nothing to do with being wound tight. It has to do with this thread. Read it front to back. It makes hunters look bad. It makes hunters look careless and it makes them look blood thirsty. You may not advocate after your 3rd or fourth post in this thread wiping out wolves, but you sure seemed eager to jump on the wolf-killing bandwagon even though you have nothing personally invested in it other than to kill them(which was my point that you missed earlier). This didn't make you look like a responsible hunter. It took a few of my posts to make you start to talk more sense.

If you are OK with that, it's your prerogative. Personally, I think some hunters need to step back sometimes and see just how stupid some of the rhetoric sounds. It doesn't help our cause at all.

But, perhaps, I expect too much. Perhaps I care too much about both our resources and hunting.

[Print]
An interesting point and I encourage you to do the exact same thing. Keep in mind what I said in my original post, not 3rd or 4th. I stated there was a problem with the wolves hurting populations in certain areas and that controlling the populations would be beneficial. I did not say they were a problem everywhere and I did not say wipe them out. I said certain areas and control. I pointed out a new opportunity, with some enthusiasm and took a jab at the radical enviros. If you read my original post again you will see that I'm not advocating jumping on a wolf killing bandwagon I stated the populations need control in certain areas and a person could have an enjoyable time doing it. And what makes you think I have nothing personally invested in it? I grew up on and worked ranches that suffered through the predation of their animals (though by other canines not wolves). I hunt deer/elk/etc and I have watched the elk herds in my hunting areas dwindle considerably since the wolf packs came in. I have a vested interest alright.

In regards to "It took a few of my post to make you start making sense...” OK, my first post was short so I could have included more details but it was clear. My second post listed many of the most controversial issues with some links pointing to some info. I followed the links with some reasonable discussion. My next post states I don't follow your line of thought and joined in Accuracy Sports joke about large coyotes. At this point I think you got "wound tight".

Throughout this thread I have advocated control/balance/management and never anything about wiping out wolves. The wiping out portion is what you interjected. What I did do was not spell things out well enough to not appear to be "blood thirsty". I regret if I may have appeared so because I do not advocate such, however, this is a varmint hunters group and to varmint hunt looks, to the uninformed, to be a blood thirsty activity. It’s not outside the realm of this forum to talk in a manner that appears blood thirsty. I applaud you for caring about our resources and hunting but to take a conversation and interpret it as careless, blood thirsty hunters looking to wipe out the wolves is a stretch. In fact it’s because I care that I want the wolves managed. If we balance the wolf population then the wolves, deer, elk, humans etc can all live together.

[Print]
They kill fawns. Many fawns. Man has altered the landscape with agricultural practices that have removed a lot of small creatures that were a primary food source for Canis Lupus and his cousin Mr. Yote.

Wisconsin has reintroduced wolves and protected them, and the yote numbers are way up. The hunters here are blaming DNR mismanagement and license fee hunger, but I feel there is more predation.

As far as hunters having their way, they are a lot more responsible than the Asian invaders who take the baby creatures at all times of the year, and even the robin eggs out of the nest.

Libspeak to the contrary, hunters do practice conservation.

HM

[Print]
Until you teach coyotes and wolves how to farm and make biscuits, you'll have to get used to them eating animals, halfmile.

In all of history, hunters have shown a predisposition to hunt beyond the resources available to them. As has been shown in this thread, some seem outright bloodthirsty - hunting merely for the thrill or the kill, and only providing a thin veil of conservation when pushed - such as woodsman there.

If it weren't for the proper authorities, there'd be even more threatened species.

Anyone can read this board, it is not hidden in someone's basement. At any moment there are probably a half dozen spiders here categorizing and archiving everything here for future use on search engines - the closest thing outside of a government program to eternity. Everything you say here is archived for years and likely decades, and searchable the entire time, from anywhere in the world. Keep this in mind when you push on that keyboard in the future. What you say reflects on hunters and gun rights and conservatives for the rest of the world.

[Print]
Lets clarify a few things. Granted this has not been part of the conversation until now but it will fill in some gaps since I am "outright bloodthirsty". I grew up on a ranch where we were overrun with ground squirrels and coyotes etc. I learned to varmint hunt early and continue to do so to this day. I hunt in farmers and ranchers fields where they cause problems. I don't just go out looking for an opportunity for blood thirsty killing sprees. I don't road hunt and I don't hunt areas where the populations aren't hurting anything. I hunt deer/elk for food and the thrill of the hunt. You can have that thrill by the way without being bloodthirsty by the way. Wolves fall more into the varmint type category where they are hunted to manage the population. Note that deer and elk etc often also fall into this category. Painting me as bloodthirsty based on so little information points to you having more of an agenda than objective reasoning in this regard.

It is true that unchecked, hunters do have a predisposition to hunt beyond the resources available to them be they man or yes wolves. So management is important whether it be game quotas or wolf quotas. If an area needs it, the quota can be 0. Its when people think the quota for the entire freeking planet has to be 0 that I get annoyed and hence why I take verbal shots at the radical enviro whackos.

Its good to be aware that the government can use converstations against us and that what we say can affect hunting, gun rights and conservatism. But rather than jumping to conclusions and painting people as bloodthirsty how about trying to see the different sides of the issue and having a good debate. Did you notice my second post was one where I presented 3 major friction points, links to view some data, and then a few thoughts of my own? I was trying to present different sides of the issue, offer places for people to go if interested and some of my own ideas. I honestly invite you to do the same. We can have a good civil discussion. We may find we agree on more than we think. We may eventually agree to disagree. Who knows. If I have offended you I apologize, but lets try to find some common ground and have a good well reasoned discussion.

[Print]
Could those large coyotes, be hybrid dog or wolf crosses? udarrell

http://www.udarrell.com/hunting_shooting_bal....mes.htm

[Print]
I finally found the picture of the large elk eating coyotes. This is apparently from the Missoula area of MT. Wow.

bigbadwolf.jpg (85.0 kb)

[Print]
Yup, that sure is a BIG coyote!

[Print]
Personally i have no problem with a wolf hunt where numbers are sufficient. In many states moose, pronghorn, bears tags etc are given out on a lottery basis simply because their numbers are small. Yet they can still be hunted. Proper management is key to almost any creature that man comes in contact with due to humankind's uncanny ability to wreck everything. Predator/prey relationships can be a very delicate balance. All animals have their place, especially ones we are responsible for wiping out. I'm no eco-nut. I enjoy hunting as much as anyone. I would personally hunt wolves. Like i said proper management is the key. Just my thoughts. Oh- afterthought I am fairly sure wolves displace coyotes like coyotes displace foxes. But wolves and foxes seem to coexist.....weird.

[Print]
I don't want to sound like I know all about the pros and cons of wolves because I surely don't. What I can tell you from living in the Hamilton, Montana area in the Bitterroot valley is that all of the wolf tags were filled (72). Most of the people living in the valley feel that there should have been 200 tags offered. There are (by some conservative estimates) close to 600 wolves in western Montana alone.
Last August a sheep rancher in Dillon, Mt. lost 120 head of sheep in one day due to wolves. He also lost over 80 years of breeding stock that can't be easily replaced.
I saw pictures of 8 moose and 6 elk that were found in just one canyon close to Hamilton,MT. that the wolves had killed but not eaten. One moose had her belly ripped open and her unborn calf pulled out and his nose eaten. The species of wolves introduced into Montana are not and were not ever native to this area. The wolves presently here will kill lots of animals just for the "kill" instinct regardless of whether they are hunger or not.

The result of the huge numbers of wolves in western Montana is the fact that the Elk and Moose populations have been greatly impacted. The fall hunt was really bad and will most likely get much worse as the elk and moose calf population are in the 3 to 6 calves per 100 ratio. Can't maintain herds with those kinds of numbers.
Do wolves belong in Montana----yes I think they have a place in the environment but I also believe they should be managed much more aggressively---but that is just my opinion and everyone has one of those. The protocol being observed by a lot of people in western Montana is the "3 S" method. Shoot em', shovel em', and shut up.

PD season? -

RE: PD season? -

Happy Holidays! -

RE: Happy Holidays! -

Get your gun books at the Shooters' Bookshelf

varmint hunting, prairie dogs, coyotes, shooting, rifles, long range shooting

v 2.5.0c